(ACH) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Discussions regarding actual culture and history of Earth.
User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4298
Joined: Thu 20 Nov 2014, 02:27

Re: (ACH) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by qwed117 » Sat 13 Aug 2016, 01:35

HoskhMatriarch wrote:
qwed117 wrote:
PS, that wiki is about a HP fanfic, that someone made. It's serious. Apparently there's a link to it on TvTropes and a NSFW wiki (which is probably encyclopedia dramatica (warning NSFL))
I meant that I'm sure that HP fanfic was made by a troll (not the wiki itself), so it doesn't mean the average person knows about Azerbaijan...
I doubt. That's a lot of effort for trolling, when it can be much easier. And you know, they wrote 44 chapters, so I strongly doubt it.
Spoiler:
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland
What is made of man will crumble away.
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1241
Joined: Mon 19 Sep 2011, 18:37

Re: (ACH) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Salmoneus » Sat 13 Aug 2016, 13:29

HoskhMatriarch wrote:
qwed117 wrote:
PS, that wiki is about a HP fanfic, that someone made. It's serious. Apparently there's a link to it on TvTropes and a NSFW wiki (which is probably encyclopedia dramatica (warning NSFL))
I meant that I'm sure that HP fanfic was made by a troll (not the wiki itself), so it doesn't mean the average person knows about Azerbaijan...
Keenir wrote:
HoskhMatriarch wrote:But really, why do we never see "Apollo/Thor/Morrígan are ACTUALLY ALIENS"? That doesn't seem very politically dangerous at all. And figures from religions that are commonly followed by many white Westerners are never actually aliens.
to their credit, Ancient Aliens (on History Channel) does say that the Greek and Norse gods were aliens (ie, Thor, because he controlled thunder)....then again, they also say that aliens are the minds behind Washington DC's design, the Parthenon, Buddha/Buddha's revelation (ditto Jesus), etc.

its an extension of "Savages never carved these stones"...extending to the point that they disbelieve all humans are capable of building anything on their own.
Dirt huts? ALIENS!
Log cabins? ALIENS!
Tents? ALIENS!
Your explanation for anything slightly peculiar is aliens, isn't it? You lose your keys, it's aliens. A picture falls off the wall, it's aliens. That time we used up a whole bog roll in a day, you thought that was aliens as well.
User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 2837
Joined: Sat 22 Nov 2014, 04:48

Re: (ACH) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by elemtilas » Sat 13 Aug 2016, 14:35

Keenir wrote:to their credit, Ancient Aliens (on History Channel) does say that the Greek and Norse gods were aliens (ie, Thor, because he controlled thunder)....then again, they also say that aliens are the minds behind Washington DC's design, the Parthenon, Buddha/Buddha's revelation (ditto Jesus), etc. Its an extension of "Savages never carved these stones"...extending to the point that they disbelieve all humans are capable of building anything on their own.
Except for modern architecture. They never say that Minoru Yamasaki is an alien; when obviously he must be because there's no way humans should be able to build not just one but two huge tall buildings like that!
Image

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera
alynnidalar
roman
roman
Posts: 922
Joined: Sun 17 Aug 2014, 02:22
Location: Michigan, USA

Re: (ACH) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by alynnidalar » Mon 15 Aug 2016, 19:28

qwed117 wrote:
HoskhMatriarch wrote:
qwed117 wrote:
PS, that wiki is about a HP fanfic, that someone made. It's serious. Apparently there's a link to it on TvTropes and a NSFW wiki (which is probably encyclopedia dramatica (warning NSFL))
I meant that I'm sure that HP fanfic was made by a troll (not the wiki itself), so it doesn't mean the average person knows about Azerbaijan...
I doubt. That's a lot of effort for trolling, when it can be much easier. And you know, they wrote 44 chapters, so I strongly doubt it.
Well, that's been the great debate ever since the thing started to get noticed. A lot of people (including myself) believe it's a hoax (I mean, how do you explain the hacking thing?), but the elaborate trimmings surrounding it do make it hard to just dismiss the idea that it was written in all seriousness.

That being said, My Immortal isn't actually all that lengthy--the chapters are mostly very short. I think in total it's something like 20,000 words. You'd have to have real skill to write that poorly (or a real lack of skill!), but it would not be difficult to bash out 20,000 words in a couple of weeks if you threw yourself into it. The real question is around things like the LiveJournal/MySpace accounts that appear to be by the same person; that's harder to explain away. And motive, of course, but people are willing to put in significant effort to do things like this, if they find it entertaining.

(ah, fandom history. I love this stuff. Someday I wanna write a book about it and expose all our secrets to the masses. All the great dramas of the past--exposing the mysteries of the Pit of Voles, the infamous Draco Trilogy, Thirty Hs and Light and Dark The Adventures of Dark Yagami (both of which are confirmed to be trollfics), the origins of Mary Sues and slashfic... it'd be quite the book.)
User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 5998
Joined: Sun 20 Oct 2013, 01:57
Location: Tom-ʾEzru lit Yat-Vṛḵažu

Re: (ACH) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Ahzoh » Wed 12 Oct 2016, 19:18

Anyone know some documents/sites where I can learn the motivations of Spain conquering parts of Africa? The internet seems starved of such info.

I have to research this for a presentation. Can't really find elaborative information on this.
Image Ӯсцӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image ʾEšd Yatvṛḵažaẇ (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]
User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3948
Joined: Tue 14 Aug 2012, 18:32

Re: (ACH) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Creyeditor » Wed 12 Oct 2016, 21:05

Ahzoh wrote:Anyone know some documents/sites where I can learn the motivations of Spain conquering parts of Africa? The internet seems starved of such info.

I have to research this for a presentation. Can't really find elaborative information on this.
Do you know which part of of Africa? North Africa or West Africa?
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 :deu: 2 :eng: 3 :fra: 4 :esp: 4 :ind:
:con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]
User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 5998
Joined: Sun 20 Oct 2013, 01:57
Location: Tom-ʾEzru lit Yat-Vṛḵažu

Re: (ACH) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Ahzoh » Wed 12 Oct 2016, 21:23

Creyeditor wrote:
Ahzoh wrote:Anyone know some documents/sites where I can learn the motivations of Spain conquering parts of Africa? The internet seems starved of such info.

I have to research this for a presentation. Can't really find elaborative information on this.
Do you know which part of of Africa? North Africa or West Africa?
Just any part of Africa conquered by Spain. Although it seems that Spain has only invaded West Africa, notably Morocco, Western Sahara, and (not new) Guinea.
Image Ӯсцӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image ʾEšd Yatvṛḵažaẇ (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]
User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3948
Joined: Tue 14 Aug 2012, 18:32

Re: (ACH) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Creyeditor » Wed 12 Oct 2016, 21:30

Ahzoh wrote:
Creyeditor wrote:
Ahzoh wrote:Anyone know some documents/sites where I can learn the motivations of Spain conquering parts of Africa? The internet seems starved of such info.

I have to research this for a presentation. Can't really find elaborative information on this.
Do you know which part of of Africa? North Africa or West Africa?
Just any part of Africa conquered by Spain. Although it seems that Spain has only invaded West Africa, notably Morocco, Western Sahara, and (not new) Guinea.
You might want to look at the history of the Canaries, because the (security of)Spanish fishermen from the Canaries might be one reason to make a contract with the local rulers in Morocco and the Western Sahara.
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 :deu: 2 :eng: 3 :fra: 4 :esp: 4 :ind:
:con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]
User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 5998
Joined: Sun 20 Oct 2013, 01:57
Location: Tom-ʾEzru lit Yat-Vṛḵažu

Re: (ACH) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Ahzoh » Wed 12 Oct 2016, 21:32

Creyeditor wrote:You might want to look at the history of the Canaries, because the (security of)Spanish fishermen from the Canaries might be one reason to make a contract with the local rulers in Morocco and the Western Sahara.
Is this more contemporary? Because I'm referring to during the so-called "Scramble for Africa" and I thought they invaded/made into a protectorate Morocco and Western Sahara.
Image Ӯсцӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image ʾEšd Yatvṛḵažaẇ (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]
User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3948
Joined: Tue 14 Aug 2012, 18:32

Re: (ACH) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Creyeditor » Thu 13 Oct 2016, 20:41

Ahzoh wrote:
Creyeditor wrote:You might want to look at the history of the Canaries, because the (security of)Spanish fishermen from the Canaries might be one reason to make a contract with the local rulers in Morocco and the Western Sahara.
Is this more contemporary? Because I'm referring to during the so-called "Scramble for Africa" and I thought they invaded/made into a protectorate Morocco and Western Sahara.
No I don't think it's contemporary, but maybe pre- or post-"Scramble for Africa". I guess there might be a lot of geopolitical consideration involved. French and British interests in Africa might have played a role, judging from Wikipedia [;)]
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 :deu: 2 :eng: 3 :fra: 4 :esp: 4 :ind:
:con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]
User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 5998
Joined: Sun 20 Oct 2013, 01:57
Location: Tom-ʾEzru lit Yat-Vṛḵažu

Re: (ACH) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Ahzoh » Thu 12 Jan 2017, 22:57

Does anyone have any scientific articles proving the Out of Africa theory?
Image Ӯсцӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image ʾEšd Yatvṛḵažaẇ (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1241
Joined: Mon 19 Sep 2011, 18:37

Re: (ACH) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Salmoneus » Fri 13 Jan 2017, 00:51

Ahzoh wrote:Does anyone have any scientific articles proving the Out of Africa theory?
By "scientific articles proving the Out of Africa theory" you mean... the whole of science? I'm not sure how anyone could not believe Out of Africa, unless they also refuse to believe in evolution.
User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 5998
Joined: Sun 20 Oct 2013, 01:57
Location: Tom-ʾEzru lit Yat-Vṛḵažu

Re: (ACH) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Ahzoh » Fri 13 Jan 2017, 02:15

Salmoneus wrote:
Ahzoh wrote:Does anyone have any scientific articles proving the Out of Africa theory?
By "scientific articles proving the Out of Africa theory" you mean... the whole of science? I'm not sure how anyone could not believe Out of Africa, unless they also refuse to believe in evolution.
There is apparently some guy, an archaeologist, saying the evidence is incomplete, something about faked fossil records meaning that OOA theory is possibly manipulated.

Examples of them talking like a science denier and this is from a fucking archaeologist:
Darren Manson wrote:Science likes theories that make sense and they often ditch any evidence that doesn't fit their theories. In short they make up lies because they can't cope with loose ends. We didn't come out of Africa, do some research people, plenty other plausible theories.
Prove me to be speaking bullshit, I'm an archaeologist myself and I also work in film production, there is a great deal of scientific study in both those fields my friend. It is very much you who are in denial. Do you believe a man of the church would tell no lies to persuade a follower? Once there was a time when we were told the Earth to be flat and the masses of peasants believed it because theologists and "scientists" told them so. Take creationism and go fuch. Open your blinkered eyes and do some research, new theories and evidence showing human movement across the planet from a variety of directions. Here, do some reading to see how many of the fossils of which the Africa theory and others like it are based on falsified evidence and missing information:
http://www2.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_in ... _prim.html
So let's come back to the core point, man is supposed to come out of Africa but the fossil record from which that picture was made is incomplete and the parts are separated by MILLIONS of years. Add to that the fact that Siberia and norther Russia yield no human fossil remains because it's all frozen solid up there, don't you think there is a huge part of the Earth puzzle missing?
Many scientists, historians, and archaeologists have faked their theories and many of those theories are still accepted because people like you don't go back and question them. You're right, it is the job to root out such instances and that is my point- NEW EVIDENCE CONTRARY TO WHAT YOU WERE TAUGHT SHOWS MAN DIDN'T COME OUT OF AFRICA BUT IN FACT ALREADY OVER THE PLANET at that theorised point in time.
My part of the world hasn't had major archaeological study for more than 100 years which means none of it has been re-examined with modern science and it desperately needs to be because myself and the few other re-exploring my country are finding huge errors in the original theories and this is not unique. Egyptology has major gaping errors and falsifications. The evolution of man likewise.
Believes in evolution though, though says it too is "flawed".
Last edited by Ahzoh on Fri 13 Jan 2017, 02:23, edited 1 time in total.
Image Ӯсцӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image ʾEšd Yatvṛḵažaẇ (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1241
Joined: Mon 19 Sep 2011, 18:37

Re: (ACH) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Salmoneus » Fri 13 Jan 2017, 02:20

So why are you bothering to waste your time trying to argue with a lunatic? You're not going to persuade him, he's not going to persuade you, so why bother?
User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 5998
Joined: Sun 20 Oct 2013, 01:57
Location: Tom-ʾEzru lit Yat-Vṛḵažu

Re: (ACH) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Ahzoh » Fri 13 Jan 2017, 02:26

Salmoneus wrote:So why are you bothering to waste your time trying to argue with a lunatic? You're not going to persuade him, he's not going to persuade you, so why bother?
If you cannot refute another's argument, then that means you must accept it. At least, that is what one should do, but I do believe this particular nonsense is indefensible.
And in all honesty, this is also a matter of ego.

Google scholar doesn't really bring me up anything I'm quite looking for.
Image Ӯсцӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image ʾEšd Yatvṛḵažaẇ (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1241
Joined: Mon 19 Sep 2011, 18:37

Re: (ACH) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Salmoneus » Fri 13 Jan 2017, 02:45

Ahzoh wrote:
Salmoneus wrote:So why are you bothering to waste your time trying to argue with a lunatic? You're not going to persuade him, he's not going to persuade you, so why bother?
If you cannot refute another's argument, then that means you must accept it.
No, that's nonsense.
First, you're not talking about refuting his argument, you're talking about persuading him. After all, the argument comes pre-refuted. And "we should all agree with the craziest, most unreasonable guy in the room" is not a sensible moral principle.
Second, in terms of rational refutation, there are countless theories you can't refute. You can't believe all of them. Many of the worst ideas are the hardest to refute - how can you possibly refute the idea that there's a global scientific conspiracy to fake fossils to promote the out of africa theory? Any paper you offer will equally fit the "people who write scientific papers are part of the Conspiracy" theory and the "people who write scientific papers are following the evidence" theory. That's the problem with conspiracies - they cannot be disproven.
And in all honesty, this is also a matter of ego.
Which is what seems so pathological. Why is your ego dependent on what some mad guy on the internet believes? You will never persuade him or disprove his theory, but even if you could why on earth would that in any way reflect on your own view of yourself? Don't see yourself in his terms. For one thing, that's never a good idea. For another, he's a nutter.
User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4298
Joined: Thu 20 Nov 2014, 02:27

Re: (ACH) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by qwed117 » Fri 13 Jan 2017, 05:03

Well, fossils have been found in Siberia of hominids, namely Denisovians. I don't really know what conspiracy he'd be suggestin from this. Ask him for the evidence. Preferably politely.
Spoiler:
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland
What is made of man will crumble away.
User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 2837
Joined: Sat 22 Nov 2014, 04:48

Re: (ACH) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by elemtilas » Sat 14 Jan 2017, 04:22

Ahzoh wrote:Does anyone have any scientific articles proving the Out of Africa theory?
No. Theories can not be proven. They can be increasingly confirmed and better explained.
Salmoneus wrote:By "scientific articles proving the Out of Africa theory" you mean... the whole of science? I'm not sure how anyone could not believe Out of Africa, unless they also refuse to believe in evolution.
I don't. But I'm just quibbling with the loose usage of "believe". Belief is a matter of reasoned faith. Acceptance of a scientific theory is a matter of gathering and evaluating physical evidence and explaining it within a particular framework (scientific method).
Ahzoh wrote:There is apparently some guy, an archaeologist, saying the evidence is incomplete, something about faked fossil records meaning that OOA theory is possibly manipulated.

Examples of them talking like a science denier and this is from a fucking archaeologist:
Of course the evidence is incomplete. If the evidence were complete, scientists in a field would be out of a job. If he was actually serious in using that as a corner-stone of his own theory, then either he's a fool or he's just trying to pull the wool over your eyes. If he's serious about faked fossil records, then I become rather more suspicious of his own agenda and wonder how far down the path to scientific crankery and crackpottery is he running. If he's serious about one or more conspiracy theories, then I become very suspicious indeed of his own theory being little more than a crackpot one.

And I don't say this in the belief that science is perfect and has all the answers. I know well enough that new evidence is found all the time across a wide range of disciplines, that old evidence is sometimes reexamined yielding new perspectives and often gets overlooked. I know that science, in order for it to work, can not rest. Every generation must continually reexamine the work of the previous generation, question those old ideas, probe the depths of the evidence gathered and come up with new explanations. I also know every discipline has its cranks, its crackpots and its mavericks. Often times, it's from this end of the spectrum that perspective-changing science is done. But also, it's at this end of the spectrum where true quackery and lunacy prevail. And sometimes it's hard to tell the difference!
Darren Manson wrote:Science likes theories that make sense and they often ditch any evidence that doesn't fit their theories. In short they make up lies because they can't cope with loose ends. We didn't come out of Africa, do some research people, plenty other plausible theories.
Image Manson supports his own theory by citing some nebulous conspiracy on the part of the majority of scientists.

Image Manson supports his own theory by discrediting the science done by others. Then he wants you (his audience) to "do some research". Well, where are the vast majority of interested laymen, such as yourself, going to "do some research" except among the very sources he has already sought to discredit.
Prove me to be speaking bullshit, I'm an archaeologist myself and I also work in film production, there is a great deal of scientific study in both those fields my friend. It is very much you who are in denial. Do you believe a man of the church would tell no lies to persuade a follower? Once there was a time when we were told the Earth to be flat and the masses of peasants believed it because theologists and "scientists" told them so. Take creationism and go fuch. Open your blinkered eyes and do some research, new theories and evidence showing human movement across the planet from a variety of directions. Here, do some reading to see how many of the fossils of which the Africa theory and others like it are based on falsified evidence and missing information:
http://www2.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_in ... _prim.html
So let's come back to the core point, man is supposed to come out of Africa but the fossil record from which that picture was made is incomplete and the parts are separated by MILLIONS of years. Add to that the fact that Siberia and norther Russia yield no human fossil remains because it's all frozen solid up there, don't you think there is a huge part of the Earth puzzle missing?
Image "Incomplete..." This is, perhaps ironically?, a common tactic used by creation scientists to support their own hypotheses. Here Manson is trying to redirect your attention by pointing out the gap. Well, of cóurse there are gaps in fossil records! Duh! Not everyone becomes a fossil, bones and fossils are easily enough damaged or destroyed, the relatively small populations of early people can only lead one to conclude that there won't be that many fossils anyway and, lastly, archaeologists haven't dug up every square metre of Africa (or anywhere else) in order to find all the fossils. There's bound to be huge gaps.
Many scientists, historians, and archaeologists have faked their theories and many of those theories are still accepted because people like you don't go back and question them. You're right, it is the job to root out such instances and that is my point- NEW EVIDENCE CONTRARY TO WHAT YOU WERE TAUGHT SHOWS MAN DIDN'T COME OUT OF AFRICA BUT IN FACT ALREADY OVER THE PLANET at that theorised point in time.
Image Again with the grand conspiracy theories. I'm not saying science is perfect or anything, but it's perspective and theories certainly do change over time. I guess just not in the direction Manson wants it to go!

Just take dinosaurs. When I was a kid, books about dinosaurs were filled with pictures of big plodding, rough grey skinned and dopey looking behemoths sloshing about in tropical swamps. Anymore we've got wonderful sleek, eager looking & keen-eyed befeathered animals in great variety of form, coloration and habitat. O mures, o tempura!
My part of the world hasn't had major archaeological study for more than 100 years which means none of it has been re-examined with modern science and it desperately needs to be because myself and the few other re-exploring my country are finding huge errors in the original theories and this is not unique. Egyptology has major gaping errors and falsifications. The evolution of man likewise.
Image Again with the conspiracy of falsification of evidence.
Ahzoh wrote:Believes in evolution though, though says it too is "flawed".
Image "Believes" in science. Physical evidence, gathered & studied scientifically, doesn't require "belief". I don't "believe in" Evolution, or Gravitation or Germ Theory for that matter. I accept that evidence collected and studied supports these theories more than it discredits them.

I do agree with Manson that science can't rest on its laurels. Just because some bloke raked the country with a fine toothed comb a century ago doesn't give leave to never touch the evidence again. You always to keep searching, keep refining old theories, toss out those not supported by new evidence or better reading of old evidence.

That said, I don't agree that the community of all scientists is in on some secret cabal seeking to control evidence and how it's interpreted (though climate science might come close to this kind of thinking). I personally believe that science is a pretty cut-throat endeavour and, at the higher levels, folks are pretty eager to hack and slash each others' theories to slivers. If not for the noble purpose of enlightening Man's mind, then at least for the purpose of lining their own pocket protectors with government & private research funding!

I count six Image. I think that might be enough to warrant the label of Grade A Nutjob, if not outright Crackpot. See, e.g. & inter alia here.
Image

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera
User avatar
Lao Kou
korean
korean
Posts: 5490
Joined: Sun 25 Nov 2012, 10:39
Location: 蘇州/苏州

Re: (ACH) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Lao Kou » Sat 14 Jan 2017, 07:22

elemtilas wrote:Anymore we've got wonderful sleek, eager looking & keen-eyed befeathered animals in great variety of form, coloration and habitat.
I know we've already talked this to death, but I still find this use of "anymore" jarring. [;)]
道可道,非常道
名可名,非常名
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1241
Joined: Mon 19 Sep 2011, 18:37

Re: (ACH) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Salmoneus » Sat 14 Jan 2017, 13:01

elemtilas wrote: I don't. But I'm just quibbling with the loose usage of "believe". Belief is a matter of reasoned faith. Acceptance of a scientific theory is a matter of gathering and evaluating physical evidence and explaining it within a particular framework (scientific method).

"Believes" in science. Physical evidence, gathered & studied scientifically, doesn't require "belief". I don't "believe in" Evolution, or Gravitation or Germ Theory for that matter. I accept that evidence collected and studied supports these theories more than it discredits them.
I'm sorry, but no. You don't get to just invent new meanings for words and then insist that everybody else use them (and this isn't the first time). For instance: "belief: mental acceptance of a claim as likely true" (wiktionary). If you think that something is more likely than not, then by definition you believe it. Either you believe in evolution or you don't, and no amount of "I'm superior to you in how I believe things so ordinary verbs don't apply to me" changes that.
[Mirriam Webster gives three definitions for 'believe' (transitive): to consider true or honest; to accept the word or evidence of; to hold as an opinion. You are opining that evolution it true, you are considering it to be true, and you are accepting the evidence of scientists to that effect, almost all of which you have not personally examined.]


It's particularly irritating to be, collectively, blasted for "loose" use of language as a philosophy graduate. I've actually spent a fair bit of time exploring the concept of belief, and it's vexing to be told that all of that must be thrown away because, well, you feel like using words differently. I mean fair enough, language changes, but you certainly don't get to shit on the established common and technical meaning of a word and then call it "loose". For a "tight" technical definition, the SEP offers: "Contemporary analytic philosophers of mind generally use the term “belief” to refer to the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true." IEP clarifies that "philosophers have traditionally characterized the nature of belief as follows. To say that a person believes a proposition is to say that, at a given moment, the person both comprehends and affirms the proposition. It is in this sense that Augustine claims, “To believe is nothing but to think with assent”", and then, acknowledging nonoccurrent beliefs as A Thing, caveats: "To say that a person believes some proposition is to say that, at a given moment, the person either

i) comprehends and affirms the proposition, or

ii) is disposed to comprehend and to affirm the proposition (cf. Audi 1994, Price 1954, Ryle 2000, Scott-Kakures 1994, Schwitzgebel 2002)."

Why you believe something is an altogether different question.
Post Reply